W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-rdf-logic@w3.org > April 2001

Re: Can we agree on triples ?

From: Peter F. Patel-Schneider <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>
Date: Mon, 02 Apr 2001 16:22:11 -0400
To: seth@robustai.net
Cc: drew.mcdermott@yale.edu, jonas@rit.se, phayes@ai.uwf.edu, www-rdf-logic@w3.org
Message-Id: <20010402162211B.pfps@research.bell-labs.com>
From: "Seth Russell" <seth@robustai.net>
Subject: Re: Can we agree on triples ?
Date: Mon, 2 Apr 2001 12:00:17 -0700

> From: "Peter F. Patel-Schneider" <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>
> 
> 
> > But RDF uses triples for lots more than just a building block of the next
> > layer.  RDF provides representational import for all triples that it sees.
> > Further, the approved mechanism for the next level is not to implement it
> > on top of RDF, but instead to extend RDF.  
> 
> Specifically what "representational import" does RDF specify, that you
> cannot live with ?   Bear in mind that I said RDF, not RDFS.
> 
> Seth

Precisely the import that is attached to the extension triples.  For
example, if you represent quantification using "http://www.bar.com/logic#forall",
you could end up with triples of the form

	{http://www.bar.com/logic#forall,a,b}

which should not result in the assertion that there is some forall
relationship between the representation of the variable a and the
representation of the formula b, at least not one that will commingle with
assertions that come from triples of the form 

	{loves,john,mary}

peter
Received on Monday, 2 April 2001 16:24:29 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:52:38 GMT